At the end of the day, you're using Apple and Google's platform to sell your game and play it. Not paying a fee of some type would be like me getting office space to run my business, then telling the landlord I don't want to pay. In the case of Google, I get it, they were charging different prices depending on who you were, which is most likely why they lost. But what is Epic's final goal? To pay nothing, while still demanding to use Google's servers?
Except office space is a scarce resource that has notable real world costs. The costs of a digital space are insignificant to the fees charged. The markup difference is that office space is a regulated but ultimately free market, so competitive factors affect the product, the app store is a monopoly, hence the entire point of the anti-competitive monopoly regulation that the entire episode is about. Study some economics at least before spouting.
I think it’s the same thing with how they created Epic Games store to “against Stream’s evil deal”. They just want more profit and miscalculating stuff hard.
@@BenjaminLupton I'm not familiar with the lawsuit, but that only checks out if Epic wants to have their own store on iOS. They got in trouble because they were using the App Store to host the app, but then bypass the App Store services to get more revenue. If everyone were to do that, that would mega suck for Apple because they have to host all these apps with no way of getting revenue from them.
The part I don't get about all this is that Android has more ways of loading apps on your phone than iOS. Within the Android ecosystem manufacturers have their own app stores.
Right, but the main problem is they were like a bazaar. Eh, for you...$2.50. For him, $1.25. If they were consistent with their pricing, I don't think they would have lost.
Isn’t it similar to Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony’s fees to join their eshop? You pay a 30% fee to gain access to that market and host your content on their products. I think 30% is a standard market rate for it and Epic of all people shouldn’t be complaining about the money they’re losing. What about the crapload of money they gained? Once they tap into the market they can’t just be like nah I don’t want to pay you anymore. That’s not right at all. I support smaller fees for up and coming indie developers who maybe can’t afford that fee, but a giant company like Epic? Nah they can pound sand.
“Not paying rent” was never the point of these lawsuits. Nobody ever asked for that. What they asked for is to open up the “rental market” for competition, so that the market can find a good price for the services an app store offers. Right now, the price is set by the device manufacturers. That they all land on 30% just means that it is the most they can ask for without making it look outright exorbitant to the general public. Mind you, they don’t own the devices that you paid for. The devices are yours. They don’t own the Internet either. You pay “rent” to your Internet providers for access to the Internet. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony etc. just force you to use their services after you buy a device from them. And that cancels out competition. Why can’t I buy my apps through Dell or Lenovo or HP or Acer or Asus? Because they don’t offer an operating system for their devices. The OS is how Apple, Google and the others can lock us into their stores. The hardware manufacturers simply don’t have the technical means to offer competing software stores. Software manufacturers simply do it because they provide this part of the ecosystem, which allows them to enforce their monopolies. As you so aptly put it, they provide access to a market, they are market gatekeepers. And that is exactly what is not allowed by antitrust laws. They should not be able to own the market, but rather just be one of the competitors on the market. - Mind you, it would be different if customers could just switch between the software ecosystems: Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. But once people invest into apps from one ecosystem, they are tying themselves into it, and they cannot leave for one of the other ecosystems without the huge costs of buying (or renting) the apps again that they need. So, each ecosystem is a market by itself, and the app stores are taking a gatekeeping tax. They are the militia that walls off their community, rather than just another shop on the market square. So, do app stores provide a service that they should get paid for? Sure. They make all these apps available for download, they store them somewhere, they provide a shop frontend, they may even do security reviews and they review other app guidelines. That is worth money, and I want to pay for it. But I also want to have a choice to get these services from other companies, if they can provide the same or a better service for a competitive price. Just as I want to be able to choose to live in a place with rent that I can afford.
@@OrafuDa Dude, you’re literally saying that Costco should open a spot in their warehouse so any other store like Safeway or Walmart can sell their products too and they should do the same for any other store. You’re saying that Xbox should have a Playstation and Nintendo store in it and so does the other consoles. We should have every console to be able to play xbox, playstation and Nintendo exclusive games in it, right? That’s what you’re saying. All different brands of PC that you mentioned don’t have a store because it’s not their software! They use Windows! And windows started with no store because it wasn’t something that they were thinking about it. Apple and Goggles on the other hand… saw the potential of having a store which means less viruses and malware (but also profit for them). Windows has it worse with those things because it’s so open which makes it easier for hackers. Here’s the thing… software is the store! Apple and Google are the competition. Every single store needs to have something so they can keep their customers. Look at Costco, they have a membership fee. So does that mean they should not do that anymore? And everyone should be able to enter without a membership? It sounds more like controlling the companies so it fits our needs. They should have the right to do whatever. If the people don’t like it, then don’t spend your money on it. That’s the best method to support what you like and what you don’t like. But look at them, a bunch of ppl do like them and they are successful. The difference in the digital/software world is that we can’t really go into Costco and then go to Walmart because the software language is different. The equivalent is like if we go to an American store but then we want to go to this other store that is in a different country. We can but we’ll need to fly over that country in order to enter their store. Keeping in mind that it’s a different country with their own language. If you buy there, the money doesn’t go to the US… the money goes to that same country! That’s what it’s happening in the digital world. But Apple, Google, xbox, nintendo, and playstation have their own platform so ppl can buy through them. They are the one who built the platform so they have the right to do whatever they pleased with it. If they don’t want to have multiple stores then so be it. No store will have a spot for walmart, safeway and costco; why does Apple and the other companies should? Apple brings a bunch of customers to developers, bunch of small developers says that they make more money through iOS than android. People are willing to spend more where they know it’s legit.
@@jaerg91 The difference is that Walmart and Costco don’t have a monopoly in some ecosystem. So, no, I am not saying that Walmart should open a spot in their warehouse for others. A customer who goes to Costco could just as well go to any other retailer. (You already listed Walmart and Safeway, and then there are many others including online stores.) Retail customers have lots of choices. There is competition. This is completely different for the ecosystem of iOS / iPadOS software. Customers have no choice whatsoever, they need to get their iOS / iPadOS software from the App Store. And for Android / Google Play it is similar, although they allow the Samsung store onto Android phones now. If Walmart would own, say, all farms in the USA, and customers would need to buy all their farm food through Walmart, then it would be a comparable situation. (Customers would still have a choice for buying steaks from a variety of other retailers, but on farmed food Walmart would have a monopoly.) And yes, that would be a case where Walmart would violate customer rights. They cannot be the only retailer for farm foods, customers would require more retailers for farm foods to have a choice again. (And of course the other shops would be using their own facilities on their own premises … there is no requirement for Walmart to put a competitor’s shop into their own shop. Similarly, a third party app store would not be part of the Apple App Store, but just another app that runs on the hardware that people already own. Apple may make you feel like they still own your iDevice, or that any connection between the OS and the App Store is “theirs”, but they don’t actually own your iPhone or iPad … you do! You paid for the device and the OS license! And you can do what you want to do with it!) What the lawsuits are saying, in effect, is that one company cannot own an ecosystem (e.g. an operating system that all software needs to be able to run, or all farmland that farmers need to produce farm food) and at the same time have the only shop for that ecosystem. (One company owning a whole ecosystem is already a limitation of customer choice, of course. But in the case of operating systems, it is more difficult to offer more choice. There would have to be several vendors that offer iOS / iPadOS. And I don’t think I can go into this here, this comment is already getting way too long.) It is all about giving customers the choice to buy from different vendors and manufacturers. When that choice exists, then there is no antitrust case. In the Apple and Android cases, this choice does not exist. The main problem that brought us into this situation is that operating systems have become essential services. No software can run without an operating system these days. And equal access to essential services is one of the ground rules for giving customers a choice. So, yes, in general I would agree with your point: they made a product (let’s call it “product A”), and they should be able to tie any other product (“product B”) to it as they please. And they could even make customer contracts to exclude them from using alternatives to “product B”. But only as long as customers have the choice to choose otherwise. And if “product A” is an essential service, that is the customer cannot simply choose a comparable product from some other company, then tying “product B” to it (or excluding alternatives for “B”) *forces* the customers to get or use both products, and not to use alternatives. The same happened when Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and didn’t give other browsers equal support on Windows. Windows was an essential service, customers at that time could not simply choose not to use Windows. And the bundling was ruled to be a violation of the customers’ rights for choice. I agree that companies should be able to do many things with their products. But not when that also violates the rights of others. Some footnotes about the other points: On my example of “why can’t I buy software from a Dell or Lenovo store?” … and I should have added LG and others. These are the manufacturers of devices that we buy. Why don’t they have an equal right to offer an app store on those devices that they made and sold to us? What makes the OS manufacturer so special? They only made another part of these devices and then sold it to us. The answer is: there is nothing special about the OS manufacturer. It is not that others wouldn’t add an app store to the devices that they sell. It is all about that they are not given access to those devices, because the OS manufacturer is in a key position to exclude them, and to enforce that with their OS. It is a power imbalance, not a lack of contribution. I could also have added the Steam store in. It doesn’t exist on Apple, because Apple doesn’t allow it. It exists on other platforms. I do acknowledge that it takes much longer and that it is more complicated to create and maintain an operating system. But that still doesn’t give the OS maker primacy over other part makers, or overrides customer rights. On your example that shops should be able to offer memberships to keep their customers. Yes, I agree, that is probably something that they should be able to do. And I agree that customers can still simply choose to go to a different store if they don’t like it. And there is no problem with that, because customers can still choose. But the situation for Apple & Android is different. Because customers need to spend many dollars just to switch to a different vendor. They do not just buy consumable goods from these vendors, they buy apps that they keep using. And to get to a level of having a comparable device from a different vendor, customers need to make the same investments again! And that is a high barrier to customer choice. This doesn’t exist for Costco memberships, the costs of switching are comparatively low. But making switching expensive takes away customer choice, and that is a customer right that antitrust laws protect. And that is where Apple and Google cross the line of encroaching on other peoples’ rights, just because they can. I believe we actually agree on most things. You also seem to believe that customers can simply choose what they want. And I also believe that manufacturers should be able to do many things with their products. Our main disagreement seems to be that you would allow manufacturers to do “whatever” they want with the products they make. And I don’t think they can do “whatever” they want. Every right has limits, especially when it encroaches on other peoples’ rights. (Similarly, I do believe that someone who bought a product, say a tire, a set of coasters or a Huawei phone, can do nearly whatever they want with it, but also within the limits of not encroaching on the rights of others.)
The circumstances are arguably different. Console makers recoup their development and manufacturing costs from the commission they charge on games. Apple already sells all their hardware at a profit. The argument for lower fees is that the scale at which these companies operate, Apple is basically asking for free money which is way over what they need to maintain the app store and perform QA.
5:56 To be fair goverments do that all the time... Like when a city, state or country wants a company to have a presence there they are at least willing to pay for it if not lower their taxes... And I'd bet even Nintendo and steam does this too... Like a major exemple is all the money thrown at inetel to set up chip manufacturing all over the world and ofcorse the BEV tax credit.
Yea but the government only does this when they spend money in the community or in other organizations. Government will not let them pay less taxes just because. That is why all “free” and “donations” that the companies do… are used to show the government the “good” that they have done in order to pay less taxes. Does that make sense?
It seems that google also pushed for a bench trial but the judge for them rejected it while in the Apple case that different judge allowed a bench trial
Why would Epic think to not pay Google or Apple even though they make it clear that they have to pay? 4:10 You guys buy in game items? If a game can be played without the need of in game purchases then I don't mind. Plants vs. Zombies 2 was at first criticized for micro transactions, afterwards people realized you don't have to pay to win and they loved the main game and game modes.
@@jaerg91 the same google that are taking different percentage for tax based on how important you are to them, they should at least play fair with every big company because when you don’t, things turns out like this, I guess epic just saw an opportunity with google and they took it
Wait, so you're telling me that regardless of the job size or client I have to give the exact same bid to each job? Might not be a great way of explaining what I'm trying to say but I think most people will get my point. I don't love Google or Apple but I thought we had a free market in a capitalist run economy.. I guess it's only a capitalist run economy and not a free market.
That was a twisted info. Apple has different rates for different types of apps. Game apps are strictly with the 30% (over a million). While a store app like Amazon doesn’t. The main reason is because Amazon has other ppl selling stuff through Amazon and then through Apple. If Apple charges 30%… the remaining 70% becomes less for the seller because Amazon has to take a cut too. So perhaps Apple takes 15% and Amazon takes another 15% and at the end the seller takes the 70%. But don’t quote me on those percentages because idk if that’s the actual percentage.
imo, the worst take on this situation is “Apple won by being more monopolistic”. Like, it sounds like some very much controlled sentence to spread the agenda. Not an actual description of what happened.
9:06 wait so you're telling me this will just make Apple even more of a monopoly???
So Apple won and google lost lmao? I’m weak
At the end of the day, you're using Apple and Google's platform to sell your game and play it. Not paying a fee of some type would be like me getting office space to run my business, then telling the landlord I don't want to pay. In the case of Google, I get it, they were charging different prices depending on who you were, which is most likely why they lost. But what is Epic's final goal? To pay nothing, while still demanding to use Google's servers?
Except office space is a scarce resource that has notable real world costs. The costs of a digital space are insignificant to the fees charged. The markup difference is that office space is a regulated but ultimately free market, so competitive factors affect the product, the app store is a monopoly, hence the entire point of the anti-competitive monopoly regulation that the entire episode is about. Study some economics at least before spouting.
Epic’s real end goal was to force Apple to allow sideloading so that they could put the epic games store on iPhones.
The problem isn't that they charge the developers but rather that they have a monopole over the industry while being unfair and not transparent
I think it’s the same thing with how they created Epic Games store to “against Stream’s evil deal”. They just want more profit and miscalculating stuff hard.
@@BenjaminLupton I'm not familiar with the lawsuit, but that only checks out if Epic wants to have their own store on iOS. They got in trouble because they were using the App Store to host the app, but then bypass the App Store services to get more revenue. If everyone were to do that, that would mega suck for Apple because they have to host all these apps with no way of getting revenue from them.
The part I don't get about all this is that Android has more ways of loading apps on your phone than iOS. Within the Android ecosystem manufacturers have their own app stores.
Right, but the main problem is they were like a bazaar. Eh, for you...$2.50. For him, $1.25. If they were consistent with their pricing, I don't think they would have lost.
@@dontbanmebrodontbanme5403 but that's how the market works 😀
It's called freedom, something that you will never get by using apple products
@@indecisions99I don’t think that’s a point of this comment.
@@indecisions99the conversation wasn’t about this, but what freedom do you get from android phones, I use one my self, I recently switched to android
Feeding Meta more data constantly, right off your face is wild.
I'm guessing Google will just have to not be able to make any special contract again. Netflix and Spotify won't be getting special treatment.
Isn’t it similar to Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony’s fees to join their eshop? You pay a 30% fee to gain access to that market and host your content on their products. I think 30% is a standard market rate for it and Epic of all people shouldn’t be complaining about the money they’re losing. What about the crapload of money they gained? Once they tap into the market they can’t just be like nah I don’t want to pay you anymore. That’s not right at all.
I support smaller fees for up and coming indie developers who maybe can’t afford that fee, but a giant company like Epic? Nah they can pound sand.
Exactly… once you open an Epic game… straight up they’re asking for your money lol but they don’t want to pay rent? Those guys are something else.
“Not paying rent” was never the point of these lawsuits. Nobody ever asked for that. What they asked for is to open up the “rental market” for competition, so that the market can find a good price for the services an app store offers.
Right now, the price is set by the device manufacturers. That they all land on 30% just means that it is the most they can ask for without making it look outright exorbitant to the general public. Mind you, they don’t own the devices that you paid for. The devices are yours. They don’t own the Internet either. You pay “rent” to your Internet providers for access to the Internet. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony etc. just force you to use their services after you buy a device from them. And that cancels out competition.
Why can’t I buy my apps through Dell or Lenovo or HP or Acer or Asus? Because they don’t offer an operating system for their devices. The OS is how Apple, Google and the others can lock us into their stores. The hardware manufacturers simply don’t have the technical means to offer competing software stores. Software manufacturers simply do it because they provide this part of the ecosystem, which allows them to enforce their monopolies.
As you so aptly put it, they provide access to a market, they are market gatekeepers. And that is exactly what is not allowed by antitrust laws. They should not be able to own the market, but rather just be one of the competitors on the market. - Mind you, it would be different if customers could just switch between the software ecosystems: Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. But once people invest into apps from one ecosystem, they are tying themselves into it, and they cannot leave for one of the other ecosystems without the huge costs of buying (or renting) the apps again that they need. So, each ecosystem is a market by itself, and the app stores are taking a gatekeeping tax. They are the militia that walls off their community, rather than just another shop on the market square.
So, do app stores provide a service that they should get paid for? Sure. They make all these apps available for download, they store them somewhere, they provide a shop frontend, they may even do security reviews and they review other app guidelines. That is worth money, and I want to pay for it. But I also want to have a choice to get these services from other companies, if they can provide the same or a better service for a competitive price. Just as I want to be able to choose to live in a place with rent that I can afford.
@@OrafuDa
Dude, you’re literally saying that Costco should open a spot in their warehouse so any other store like Safeway or Walmart can sell their products too and they should do the same for any other store. You’re saying that Xbox should have a Playstation and Nintendo store in it and so does the other consoles. We should have every console to be able to play xbox, playstation and Nintendo exclusive games in it, right? That’s what you’re saying.
All different brands of PC that you mentioned don’t have a store because it’s not their software! They use Windows! And windows started with no store because it wasn’t something that they were thinking about it.
Apple and Goggles on the other hand… saw the potential of having a store which means less viruses and malware (but also profit for them). Windows has it worse with those things because it’s so open which makes it easier for hackers.
Here’s the thing… software is the store! Apple and Google are the competition. Every single store needs to have something so they can keep their customers. Look at Costco, they have a membership fee. So does that mean they should not do that anymore? And everyone should be able to enter without a membership? It sounds more like controlling the companies so it fits our needs. They should have the right to do whatever. If the people don’t like it, then don’t spend your money on it. That’s the best method to support what you like and what you don’t like. But look at them, a bunch of ppl do like them and they are successful.
The difference in the digital/software world is that we can’t really go into Costco and then go to Walmart because the software language is different. The equivalent is like if we go to an American store but then we want to go to this other store that is in a different country. We can but we’ll need to fly over that country in order to enter their store. Keeping in mind that it’s a different country with their own language. If you buy there, the money doesn’t go to the US… the money goes to that same country! That’s what it’s happening in the digital world. But Apple, Google, xbox, nintendo, and playstation have their own platform so ppl can buy through them. They are the one who built the platform so they have the right to do whatever they pleased with it. If they don’t want to have multiple stores then so be it. No store will have a spot for walmart, safeway and costco; why does Apple and the other companies should? Apple brings a bunch of customers to developers, bunch of small developers says that they make more money through iOS than android. People are willing to spend more where they know it’s legit.
@@jaerg91 The difference is that Walmart and Costco don’t have a monopoly in some ecosystem. So, no, I am not saying that Walmart should open a spot in their warehouse for others.
A customer who goes to Costco could just as well go to any other retailer. (You already listed Walmart and Safeway, and then there are many others including online stores.) Retail customers have lots of choices. There is competition.
This is completely different for the ecosystem of iOS / iPadOS software. Customers have no choice whatsoever, they need to get their iOS / iPadOS software from the App Store. And for Android / Google Play it is similar, although they allow the Samsung store onto Android phones now.
If Walmart would own, say, all farms in the USA, and customers would need to buy all their farm food through Walmart, then it would be a comparable situation. (Customers would still have a choice for buying steaks from a variety of other retailers, but on farmed food Walmart would have a monopoly.) And yes, that would be a case where Walmart would violate customer rights. They cannot be the only retailer for farm foods, customers would require more retailers for farm foods to have a choice again. (And of course the other shops would be using their own facilities on their own premises … there is no requirement for Walmart to put a competitor’s shop into their own shop. Similarly, a third party app store would not be part of the Apple App Store, but just another app that runs on the hardware that people already own. Apple may make you feel like they still own your iDevice, or that any connection between the OS and the App Store is “theirs”, but they don’t actually own your iPhone or iPad … you do! You paid for the device and the OS license! And you can do what you want to do with it!)
What the lawsuits are saying, in effect, is that one company cannot own an ecosystem (e.g. an operating system that all software needs to be able to run, or all farmland that farmers need to produce farm food) and at the same time have the only shop for that ecosystem. (One company owning a whole ecosystem is already a limitation of customer choice, of course. But in the case of operating systems, it is more difficult to offer more choice. There would have to be several vendors that offer iOS / iPadOS. And I don’t think I can go into this here, this comment is already getting way too long.)
It is all about giving customers the choice to buy from different vendors and manufacturers. When that choice exists, then there is no antitrust case. In the Apple and Android cases, this choice does not exist.
The main problem that brought us into this situation is that operating systems have become essential services. No software can run without an operating system these days. And equal access to essential services is one of the ground rules for giving customers a choice.
So, yes, in general I would agree with your point: they made a product (let’s call it “product A”), and they should be able to tie any other product (“product B”) to it as they please. And they could even make customer contracts to exclude them from using alternatives to “product B”. But only as long as customers have the choice to choose otherwise. And if “product A” is an essential service, that is the customer cannot simply choose a comparable product from some other company, then tying “product B” to it (or excluding alternatives for “B”) *forces* the customers to get or use both products, and not to use alternatives.
The same happened when Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and didn’t give other browsers equal support on Windows. Windows was an essential service, customers at that time could not simply choose not to use Windows. And the bundling was ruled to be a violation of the customers’ rights for choice.
I agree that companies should be able to do many things with their products. But not when that also violates the rights of others.
Some footnotes about the other points:
On my example of “why can’t I buy software from a Dell or Lenovo store?” … and I should have added LG and others. These are the manufacturers of devices that we buy. Why don’t they have an equal right to offer an app store on those devices that they made and sold to us? What makes the OS manufacturer so special? They only made another part of these devices and then sold it to us. The answer is: there is nothing special about the OS manufacturer. It is not that others wouldn’t add an app store to the devices that they sell. It is all about that they are not given access to those devices, because the OS manufacturer is in a key position to exclude them, and to enforce that with their OS. It is a power imbalance, not a lack of contribution.
I could also have added the Steam store in. It doesn’t exist on Apple, because Apple doesn’t allow it. It exists on other platforms.
I do acknowledge that it takes much longer and that it is more complicated to create and maintain an operating system. But that still doesn’t give the OS maker primacy over other part makers, or overrides customer rights.
On your example that shops should be able to offer memberships to keep their customers. Yes, I agree, that is probably something that they should be able to do. And I agree that customers can still simply choose to go to a different store if they don’t like it. And there is no problem with that, because customers can still choose. But the situation for Apple & Android is different. Because customers need to spend many dollars just to switch to a different vendor. They do not just buy consumable goods from these vendors, they buy apps that they keep using. And to get to a level of having a comparable device from a different vendor, customers need to make the same investments again! And that is a high barrier to customer choice. This doesn’t exist for Costco memberships, the costs of switching are comparatively low. But making switching expensive takes away customer choice, and that is a customer right that antitrust laws protect. And that is where Apple and Google cross the line of encroaching on other peoples’ rights, just because they can.
I believe we actually agree on most things. You also seem to believe that customers can simply choose what they want. And I also believe that manufacturers should be able to do many things with their products. Our main disagreement seems to be that you would allow manufacturers to do “whatever” they want with the products they make. And I don’t think they can do “whatever” they want. Every right has limits, especially when it encroaches on other peoples’ rights.
(Similarly, I do believe that someone who bought a product, say a tire, a set of coasters or a Huawei phone, can do nearly whatever they want with it, but also within the limits of not encroaching on the rights of others.)
The circumstances are arguably different. Console makers recoup their development and manufacturing costs from the commission they charge on games. Apple already sells all their hardware at a profit. The argument for lower fees is that the scale at which these companies operate, Apple is basically asking for free money which is way over what they need to maintain the app store and perform QA.
5:56 To be fair goverments do that all the time... Like when a city, state or country wants a company to have a presence there they are at least willing to pay for it if not lower their taxes... And I'd bet even Nintendo and steam does this too... Like a major exemple is all the money thrown at inetel to set up chip manufacturing all over the world and ofcorse the BEV tax credit.
Yea but the government only does this when they spend money in the community or in other organizations. Government will not let them pay less taxes just because. That is why all “free” and “donations” that the companies do… are used to show the government the “good” that they have done in order to pay less taxes. Does that make sense?
2:40 wait so does the lawsuit apply to Apple as well?
Wait I'm so confused. Why did the Apple trial not have a jury but the Google one did?
Make research on it, I’m also confused my self
I don’t want to say something stupid because I have no idea of how these things work😂
It seems that google also pushed for a bench trial but the judge for them rejected it while in the Apple case that different judge allowed a bench trial
But isn’t side loading coming to iOS too? I just wanna know if/when I can finally play Fortnite again on my iPad
I think that's just for the EU
Why would Epic think to not pay Google or Apple even though they make it clear that they have to pay? 4:10 You guys buy in game items? If a game can be played without the need of in game purchases then I don't mind. Plants vs. Zombies 2 was at first criticized for micro transactions, afterwards people realized you don't have to pay to win and they loved the main game and game modes.
I think because of this they should go back and look at the Apple trial
why can fortnite have links for out of app purcheses but spotify does let you get premium from the app
Seeing to all the comments and comparing it to Apple's lawsuit, it seems unfair that Apple won and Google didn't
Apple 30% cut = apple tax
Google 30% cut = ….
It’s more complicated than that, just research on the topic before you start having any funny thoughts
@@2COLD118 Please read carefully.. oh wait, there’s not much to read in his comment, it’s not even his opinion, just facts!
@@jaerg91 the same google that are taking different percentage for tax based on how important you are to them, they should at least play fair with every big company because when you don’t, things turns out like this, I guess epic just saw an opportunity with google and they took it
@@2COLD118 right… but how does that make his comment wrong?
@@jaerg91 did I say his comment was wrong?
Wait, so you're telling me that regardless of the job size or client I have to give the exact same bid to each job? Might not be a great way of explaining what I'm trying to say but I think most people will get my point. I don't love Google or Apple but I thought we had a free market in a capitalist run economy.. I guess it's only a capitalist run economy and not a free market.
This will be demonized.. you are talking against the Google Overlords 😅
Apple should have lost as well.
0:44 yayyyy looks like we have a special guest :)
7:44 that's a really good point!!
Hi Love
Yes 😂😂
Guys, it’s not just Google offering lower rates to strategic developers. Apple did this with Amazon. This was widely reported back in 2020.
That was a twisted info. Apple has different rates for different types of apps. Game apps are strictly with the 30% (over a million). While a store app like Amazon doesn’t. The main reason is because Amazon has other ppl selling stuff through Amazon and then through Apple. If Apple charges 30%… the remaining 70% becomes less for the seller because Amazon has to take a cut too.
So perhaps Apple takes 15% and Amazon takes another 15% and at the end the seller takes the 70%. But don’t quote me on those percentages because idk if that’s the actual percentage.
0:21 I've never heard this expression before )
imo, the worst take on this situation is “Apple won by being more monopolistic”. Like, it sounds like some very much controlled sentence to spread the agenda. Not an actual description of what happened.
5:00 wait so why couldn't Epic just appeal?????
5:20 wait was the first trial arbitration?
If Google has to reduce than I think apple should too, Google anyways allow side loading
With over 20 years working in healthcare, I was thinking about Epic EHR. Didn't even know about Epic games till now
I'M ACTUALLY FIRST???
first?
🍪
The highest in the room